• MrMeanJavaBean@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    If a business cannot survive paying its employees a liveable wage then it should not exist. Businesses that do not pay a livable wage but can afford to are exploiting its employees.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Imagine thinking the employees are the entitled ones when running a business and feeling entitled to their labor at your price.

      I’m sorry, who’s the entitled one? Those businesses should 100% not exist. It’s called having a shitty business model.

    • doingless@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      I hear this all the time but the reality is probably a third of us work at places that are barely surviving. Imagine if all of those people were suddenly unemployed.

      • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        If companies stealing the value of people’s labor shut down, opening the way for new employee owned companies, that would be fantastic

        • doingless@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          This is great in theory but there are plenty of companies that struggle to succeed in the current realities of real estate costs, labor costs, regulatory compliance expenses etc. Not every organization has people leeching all of the profits, and even many good ones are struggling to stay afloat right now. Just because a company is employee owned doesn’t guarantee profits to share.

            • thesmokingman@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              This is a very, very, very antiquated notion of commerce and puts everything into a binary that was already outdated when posited in the mid 19th century. Not all profit is bad and not all labor is good. As an employer, safe profit allows me to hire more employees, increasing the people I can help. As an employee, safe profit that gets reinvested improves equity in my peers or provides me new opportunities to grow.

              Here’s a great example that shows the cracks in this model. We’ve got a sales person, a couple of junior software devs, and an architect. Individually, the sales person has nothing to sell, the junior devs are not experienced enough to have or build good tech, and the architect does not have enough time to build everything themselves. Together, they are able to build a product that materially helps some workflow and the sales person gets money coming in. Assuming equitable pay, possibly even equal, if the software can be sold at a profit, whose labor value was stolen? The sales person can’t exist without the code, the devs can’t sell the code, and the architect needs help to implement. Did we steal the labor value of sales? Should they make more because they went out into the market and found customers? Did we steal the labor value of the junior devs? Should they make more because they built most of the software? Did we steal the labor value of the architect? Should they make more because they had the idea and trained folks to get it done?

                • thesmokingman@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Why would I do that? OP said all profit is stolen labor value. I didn’t even mention grossly overcompensated employees who contribute nothing. You’re gonna have to find someone else for that.

              • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                11 months ago

                In your simplistic example, the profits would be split between the workers. You’re also pretending businesses don’t have useless owners.

                But nice try bootlicker.

                • thesmokingman@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  The problem you’re describing is capitalism, not profit or commerce.

                  In my real-world example, who pays for travel? If profit is just stolen labor value, clearly everyone gets all the money for hours worked, right? So who pays for travel? And wait, it actually takes longer for the juniorest dev to write some code because they’re still learning. Do they get a larger slice of the pie? They have the least experience and contributed the least overall. If we go by hourly wages then suddenly Goodhart’s Law kicks in.

                  This isn’t some hypothetical. This is a real problem real devs go through regularly and something I’ve been a part of off and on for a long time. You can call me a bootlicker all you want; I don’t really think that’s a good faith conversation so you’re not worth my time.

            • doingless@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              It’s possible for companies to lose money and still stay in business in the short term. I have run a number of small businesses and I have taken pay cuts multiple times, ran at a loss multiple years, and also put up strong profits. I run a nonprofit now and it’s tough. Business isn’t uninterrupted profit continually being stolen from workers. Sometimes investing in good people comes at a loss for awhile.